A Reasonable Response to MGoBlog
I hate to disagree with The Lawgiver so soon after I felt moved to respond to an observation by Brian that I believed was unfairly critical . . . particularly when the source of our present difference of opinion is Brian's insistence upon saying bad things about the Florida Gators, which I wholeheartedly support.
However, in his outrage over the B.C.S.'s decision to avoid the very rematch that Brian opposed at least as recently as November 20, he has tarred the opposition with too broad a brush and a more measured retort is warranted.
I understand why Brian is irate, but that is no reason to describe Georgia as "a team that sucks butt" and hold it against the Sunshine State that it sided with the Confederacy, nor is it justification for characterizing my region as "the charmingly insecure and paranoid [S]outh" and criticizing the S.E.C. for having "pretty records because of the Sun Belt [w]orld tour and excessive media hype" while offering assurances that, in the future, he will "incessantly argue against any SEC team ever making the title game again."
As the great-great-grandson of a Confederate veteran, I resent the implication that a state's position on important Constitutional questions in the mid-19th century ought to be held against it today . . . especially when that inelegant animadversion is coming from a fan of the Michigan Wolverines, whose greatest coach, Fielding Yost, was the son of a Confederate veteran. Complex historical issues ought not to be raised and dismissed so flippantly, particularly where they bear no relevance to the topic at hand. (By the way, my great-great-grandfather was Private Isom Nathaniel Underwood Cook of the 10th Infantry Georgia Battalion, C.S.A. Since Brian's last name also is Cook, he may want to check his family tree before disparaging those of us south of the Mason-Dixon line for carrying "bad blood.")
It is true, of course, that S.E.C. teams schedule a disproportionate number of Sun Belt squads, which is why I openly oppose the presence of lower-tier schools on my alma mater's slate and agitate instead for games between Georgia and Michigan . . . games which Georgia's athletic director is interested in scheduling but which Michigan's athletic director refuses to consider.
In the meantime, S.E.C. non-conference schedules are improving and mine is not the only league whose members pad their respective slates with patsies. The Sun Belt is to the S.E.C. what the M.A.C. is to the Big Ten and the Midwestern B.C.S. conference is not above bringing in weak sisters, as evidenced by this season's Akron-Penn State, Ball State-Indiana, Ball State-Michigan, Ball State-Purdue, Bowling Green-Ohio State, Bowling Green-Wisconsin, Buffalo-Wisconsin, Central Michigan-Illinois, Central Michigan-Michigan, Eastern Illinois-Illinois, Eastern Michigan-Michigan State, Eastern Michigan-Northwestern, Idaho-Michigan State, Indiana-Southern Illinois, Indiana State-Purdue, Indiana-Western Michigan, Iowa-Montana, Iowa-Northern Illinois, Kent State-Minnesota, Miami (Ohio)-Northwestern, Miami (Ohio)-Purdue, Minnesota-North Dakota State, Minnesota-Temple, New Hampshire-Northwestern, Northern Illinois-Ohio State, Penn State-Temple, Penn State-Youngstown State, San Diego State-Wisconsin, and Western Illinois-Wisconsin tussles. I share Brian's view that the S.E.C. is not appreciably stronger, top to bottom, than the Big Ten, Big 12, or Pac-10 this year, but we all live in glass houses where non-conference scheduling is concerned.
On Monday, Brian lashed out at the "idiots [who] decide[d] that my 11-1 team doesn't deserve to go to the national championship game because there's a much worse 12-1 team that had the good fortune to play in a conference without Ohio State." That is a very different Brian Cook from the one whose reaction to the most recent Michigan-Ohio State game was as follows:
Herbstreit, etc, keep advancing the theory that Michigan is better qualified than a one-loss SEC champion. This is not true. Though neither Florida nor Arkansas is without resume flaws - and I don't believe for a second that the SEC is appreciably better than any other conference this year (hi Ole Miss! Vandy seems mighty competitive this year, no?) - at 12-1 either would have scalps on a par with Notre Dame (whoever they beat in the SECCG) and Wisconsin (uh... pick one), plus at least two or three wins in the dangerous-but-not-really category, of which Michigan has one (Penn State). While Michigan's loss is probably better, the resumes of Michigan and a hypothetical one-loss SEC Champion are near equals, except for the not-incidental fact that Michigan's already proven it doesn't really belong on the same field as OSU.
The emphasis is mine, but the words are Brian's. For the record, I thought his assessment of his alma mater was overly harsh; although I opposed the idea of a national championship game rematch and believed the Wolverines would beat the Buckeyes, I ranked Michigan second immediately following the Maize and Blue's loss in Columbus because I believed Lloyd Carr's team had the best resume among the once-beaten squads.
As I wrote on November 19:
On my November 19 BlogPoll ballot, I ranked Ohio State No. 1, Michigan No. 2, Southern California No. 3, and Florida No. 4.
The following week, my top four changed, as I moved the Trojans to No. 2 and the Wolverines to No. 3. The Buckeyes and the Gators remained first and fourth, respectively. I explained the advancement of the Men of Troy in this manner:
The same four teams were rearranged again this week, as No. 1 Ohio State and No. 3 Michigan retained their same positions, while Florida and Southern California swapped spots following the Trojans' loss to U.C.L.A. Once again, there were reasons for this switch:
Please note that I share Brian's disdain for Nancy Meyer's recent conduct and, while Brian thinks the "conference champions only" ship has sailed, I remain universally critical of all instances in which teams that did not finish first in their league are allowed to compete for the right to finish first in the country because I consider it cognitive dissonance to claim that a team can be the best in the sport while also being the second-best in its conference. By definition, you can't be the strongest man in your neighborhood if there's a stronger man than you in your own household and it is no argument in favor of irrational nonsense to claim that others have been fooled by the same irrational nonsense previously.
While I will rise to the defense of the Southeastern Conference whenever it is criticized unfairly, I respect other conferences and, just as Brian has grown tired of hearing S.E.C. fans' claims of bias, I am becoming weary of hearing knee-jerk expressions of prejudice against fans and teams from my region of the country offered by folks who ought to know from reading Dawg Sports that their sweeping generalizations are erroneous overgeneralizations.
Reasonable college football fans may differ over which team most deserves the right to challenge Ohio State for the national title, as evidenced by the results of a recent poll question, but many of us who ranked Florida ahead of Michigan did so as part of a concerted effort to rank teams according to their resumes.
Earlier in the year, Brian wrote of me that "Kyle's ballot is either the work of deep reconsideration or general jumpiness." While I will confess to a certain degree of general jumpiness, I try to make the changes in my BlogPoll ballot from week to week the results of deep reconsideration and I hope I (and my fellow S.E.C. fans) are entitled to the benefit of the doubt whenever such adjustments are made to account for new information.
In his defense, Brian admitted beforehand that he was "too angry to make much sense," so I don't hold his series of screeds against him and, despite his claims to the contrary, I remain confident that, when Mark Richt guides the Bulldogs to an undefeated season within the next four or five years, anti-S.E.C. bias will not lead Brian to rank the Red and Black fifth on his BlogPoll ballot in order to torpedo Georgia's chances at a national title. (By the way, I agree with Brian that the BlogPoll is more reputable and respectable than the Harris Poll and I enthusiastically support the replacement of the latter with the former as a component of the B.C.S. formula.)
The arguments in favor of Michigan are sound ones and I am not at all certain that the Gators would beat the Wolverines on a neutral field. However, there were valid and compelling reasons for moving the Orange and Blue ahead of the Maize and Blue following the Gators' S.E.C. championship game victory over the Razorbacks and what is called for here is respectful disagreement that focuses on the matter at hand, not a sequence of wildly flailing tirades that slander indiscriminately whole conferences, fan bases, regions, and peoples, all of whom are innocent bystanders . . . and to all of whom, incidentally, the reasonable, rational, Gator-hating, conscientious BlogPoll voter who authors Dawg Sports proudly belongs.
Go 'Dawgs!
0 recs |
13
comments
Comments
Big 10 champ?
Want a rematch for the BCS? How about Florida vs. LSU! The Big 10 is just the Big 3 this year. Go play in ur Rose Bowl and win a game against Ohio next year... any year Lloyd.
Go DAWGS! Go SEC.
by ssidedawg1 on Dec 6, 2006 6:39 AM EST 0 recs
Do people get nervous....
by Johnny on Dec 6, 2006 8:18 AM EST 0 recs
They should...
I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that you can't win the national title without winning your own conference. Everyone cried "MISTAKE!! ERROR!!! DOES NOT COMPUTE!!!!" when Oklahoma was afforded the opportunity to play for the national title in 2003 despite losing badly in their conference championship game. It led to a split title between LSU and USC...two conference champions that were not afforded the opportunity to play one another, and the system took its largest black eye in my opinion.
The powers that be should have put in a rule that required participants to be conference champions after this fiasco, but that would make sense. Instead, we get what we've gotten.
Anyone who feels that Florida deserves a chance is an "SEC homer" or a "Big Ten/Michigan hater" or just plain dumb. When the shoe was on the other foot just three years ago, those responsible for Oklahoma (proxy for Michigan) getting in the title game were the idiots.
I stand by my ballot and the general consensus among all polls (AP, Coaches, Harris, Computers) that Florida is #2.
by imarealist on
Dec 6, 2006 8:46 AM EST
up
0 recs
Playoff anybody?
A few more years of this and the NCAA will adopt a playoff format by unanimous consent.
by 34hawk on Dec 6, 2006 9:04 AM EST 0 recs
Probably not
Second: The problem in the NCAA eyes is all 523 bowl games. Too many sponsors and cities getting rich off a plethora of mediocre games and a few "big" ones.
My simple solution. Take the top 8 or 16 and put them in a playoff. Make the BCS formula the determinate so that at least some non-human and non-emotional factors are included. With the playoffs, the top two left go to the "BCS Title game" while the rest fill the bowl schedule. This way, the historic bowls and their conference alignments stay intact and only the top 2 teams miss a "traditional" bowl. Heck, the current championship is in a newly created bowl anyhow. This keeps the Indies and minor conferences along with the most glorious and prestigious of all teams... Notre Dame in it every year. Ugh. We get our playoff and they get their bowls.
Also, I say eliminate a regular season game or two too.
by ssidedawg1 on
Dec 6, 2006 1:42 PM EST
up
0 recs
Great article.....
I beleive a team's entire season should be evaluated to determine whether they're worthy of playing in the championship game which matches #1 and #2, yet the determination of the conference champion is only based on one game in some cases (Ohio St/Michigan, Florida/Ark, Okl/Neb....).
I personally think that Florida deserves a shot at Ohio St. but I'm not entirely sold that they're the #2 team. It's unfair to Michigan to say they're not the #2 team in the nation b/c they lost to Ohio St therefore they're not the #1 team in their conference and by default they're not the #1 team in the nation. They just weren't better that day, but it doesn't mean that they can't be better on a different day in a different venue.
That's just my opinion, an opinion from someone who is a fan of a team that doesn't belong to either conference.
by ayden8203 on Dec 6, 2006 2:24 PM EST 0 recs
I didn't make much sense towards the end....
You may be the toughest guy on the block but maybe one day someone within your own household got the better of you and made it seem as they were tougher.
This just goes to show that a playoff is necessary.
by ayden8203 on
Dec 6, 2006 2:50 PM EST
up
0 recs
Interesting
The BCS is only good to get the top 2 teams if #3 is distant #3. It was really only meant to solve the traditional bowls dilemma of never seeing the Pac 10 champ play the SEC champ or the Big 12 champ play the Big 10 champ. The old system wouldn't allow it due to conference bowl tie-ins.
We can argue till the cows come home because the current system is arbitrary and bizarre. Could Fla beat Mich, I don't know. Could LSU beat USC, who knows? There aren't even enough common opponents to make a good guess. Line up the top 8 and let's have some fun. Sure #9 will bitch and moan, but seeing OSU, Fla, Mich, LSU, USC, Louisville, Wisc, and Boise in a playoff would be a blast!
Besides, I do know if Mich plays OSU again and wins, what does that mean? You would need a third game!
by ssidedawg1 on
Dec 6, 2006 5:34 PM EST
up
0 recs
A little flawed
- Yes, if Michigan played OSU 4 more times, they might win 3 of those, but you can't cry do over after every time you lose. You are guaranteed one shot against the teams on your schedule (unless you play in a conference with a title game- more on that), so you had better win each one. You might be better another day, but you should have won the time you played (i.e. The way Georgia played the last 2 games, I have no doubt we could beat Vandy, but we won't get the chance to avenge ourselves.) Furthermore, if Michigan did play OSU and win, couldn't OSU make the argument, we already beat you and since both of our losses are to each other, shouldn't we SHARE the title?
- Kyle, wonderful lawyering. I was wondering if you really had a day job, or if the blog was it and the court stuff was a hobby, but now I am convinced otherwise.
- Finally, I have a real problem with the Big 10. Someone cried earlier about poor Wisconsin. The only reason Wisconsin didn't have 2 losses is because they didn't play OSU. I have a hard time stomaching that the title game losers of the Big 12, ACC and SEC regulary get dumped while the Big 10's second place team benefits from not playing in a championship game. While not a significant issue for the Big 10 this year, there have been seasons with 2 Big 10 teams with equal records that never played each other, so you are left to figure out which team is the best. I believe that every team in a conference should play every other team in that conference OR settle matters with a conference title game. Especially in a 12 game season, there was no reason for the Big 10 not to play all the other teams. Yes, that may mean less games against Ball State and Ohio, but it's not really fair to the rest of the conferences. Arkansas now has 3 losses because it played in a title game against the BEST team in the SEC, Wisconsin has 1 loss because it never played the best team in its conference.
by fotodog on
Dec 6, 2006 7:30 PM EST
up
0 recs
My 2 cents
Now I want to address the Confederacy comments Brian made. It was a joke. I'm not from the South nor do I have any ties (that I'm aware of) to the old Confederacy so I don't know if it's one of those things one doesn't bring up because it is a sensitive issue. But it was a joke, not a legitimate reason to keep Florida out of the title game.
Also, I don't think you can positively say a team that finishes second in it's conference should not be allowed to play for the national title. What if Florida lost to Arkansas in the SEC title game... who would you have play OSU for the championship? Louisville? What if they had lost another game as well? It's VERY possible for the two best teams in the country to play in the same conference and if Florida had lost then we would have a OSU vs. Mich rematch (and a lot of the people who voted Florida #2 citing that a second place team shouldn't play for the title would suddenly have no problem with it).
The point I'm trying to make and the argument that most Michigan fans are employing is that, yes, Florida is a very good team that you can definitely make a good argument for as being the second best team in the country (better than Michigan) but not many people, especially the voters, are saying it. They say things like "Michigan had it's shot" and "a team that's second in it's conference can't be the national champion" but those are flawed arguments whereas saying "I think Florida is better than Michigan" while arguable, at least says that voters were voting for the right reasons and therefore is much easier to accept.
Final thoughts: Urban Meyer really rubbed me the wrong way... Nice guys finish last sometimes, but one thing that I really respect in a person is modesty, which Lloyd Carr has (to a fault, according to some). I too wish Michigan would schedule some more better non-conference opponents (at least some mid-tier opponents, Michigan plays Notre Dame and then the quality of opponent drops off severely).
by jds1103 on Dec 8, 2006 5:31 PM EST 0 recs
just a note on the Confederacy
On the other hand, most people in the northeast and midwest have ancestors who were living in another country at the time. It's just a page out of a history book that didn't happen in your great-great-grandparent's back yard.
Is it so hard to comprehend that the Civil War had a greater and lasting cultural impact here? If you live in Chicago, much of your city was burned to the ground in a tragic accident. Mine was burned to the ground by an invading military force. That hasn't happened many places in the US.
by NCT on
Dec 12, 2006 12:19 AM EST
up
0 recs







